About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
. the fact is we went into a country to fight al qaeda who was all in the mountains in pakistan and even in the cities in pakistan, probably with the knowledge of the pakistani government. and we've wasted a lot of money and lives in an area where we didn't need to be, because that war will continue. there are only 100 al qaeda give or take left in afghanistan. but there are al qaeda in other spots in the middle east. and al qaeda's people have plotted terrorist activities from germany and from other places in europe. they don't need osama bin laden's base to have activity. there's nothing you need -- as far as the soviet union, the soviet union went down for goodly reasons, because of all the money they spent in afghanistan. true, we were there fighting them, but their attempt at gaining empire, which has been the loss of many empires, stretching too far and going beyond their supply lines, killed them. they spent money there and they'd like us to stay there. they're being real nice to us. they're helping us with bases, to bring in armaments and troops and supplies. come on, america. sp
panetta went to iraq and afghanistan. he did not go to pakistan. i take that as a strong message. it is easy when you're in that region to attack on an extra couple of days for an important ally. i think that cross the minds of everyone who planned the trip. it was clearly a conscious decision not to go to pakistan. i think that is in part because when osama bin laden was killed on may 2 there was a list of things that we would ask the pakistan's to do, the pakistani to do, and i have not acted on any of them. this administration also put a hold on a $10 million in assistance. a great way to resolve that is sending the defense secretary to talk to folks about what is going on, but he did not. you are seeing already how differently the pentagon will treat allies in the region. "the in this morning's financial times" they had this headline -- guest: the withdrawal deadline is aggressive. they're talking about getting half of the troops out during the prime fighting season. they do not fight as much during the wintertime. we are starting to withdraw troops during a tumultuous situat
the speckter of the isi in pakistan. >> this morning, new evidence suggests the bombs were planted at a bus shelter, also on a motorcycle and near a parked car. this really shows that these devices were designed to cause maximum casualties and they all went off within a span of 15 minutes, and again, the simultaneous nature of the attacks is a signature of terrorism, heather. heather: they did their jobs. catherine, what does this attack mean for the u.s.? >> well, look, immediately in washington, the focus went back to three years ago and these attacks in mumbai, that was a series of attacks orchestrated by ten pakistani militants armed with cell phones, hand guns and backpacks with explosives. analysts here say if this latest attack causes friction between india and pakistan that could be serious trouble for the u.s. let's listen: >> if the attack were a cause to try to provoke a crisis between india and pakistan that would have major implications for the united states. we do not want to see those two countries go into another crisis and perhaps fight another war, which they've done three
'll remember that a lot of documents were taken from osama bin laden's compound in pakistan. well, apparently, we're learning what those documents showed. and the information that we're getting now is that u.s. president barack obama and general david petraeus were actually specifically mentioned as targets for al qaeda in these documents and that the mode of attack was even talked about. it involved destroying their aircraft when they were in the region. now, this is a source that's familiar with these materials that were recovered from the compound. they are telling us now what these documents said. once again, when the navy s.e.a.l.s stormed that compound that you're looking at right now back on may 2nd with the hopes of taking out osama bin laden, the most wanted terrorist on the fbi's most wanted list, when they took those documents, retrieved those documents and those computers, documents now saying that general david petraeus and president barack obama were both targets of al qaeda. going into detail about when they were going to be in the region, how they were going to target their ai
. what was his connection to pakistan? there are so many unanswered questions about his overseas connections and what he was really doing and his radicalization during the process in which the military did nothing. and finally, the information the joint terrorism task force had about mr. al laak can i and communications with major hasan at fort hood. why wasn't it shared with general cohen at fort hood when it could have stopped the murder of 13 soldiers? jon: a lot of questions there. let's hope you get answers. congressman, thank you. >> i appreciate it. alisyn: here's what is happening now. joint chiefs chairman admiral mike mullen giving a briefing on the wars in iraq and afghanistan and the defense department budget as the military faces questions about the mounting cost of american involvement in the libyan conflict as well. national security correspondent jennifer griffin live from the pentagon for us. jennifer, what did we learn from this briefing? >> reporter: alisyn, he didn't really speak about the libyan conflict for or the cost of it. discussion was with the pentagon
about fraud in afghanistan, iraq, pakistan, and now the congress wants us, after giving away our jobs, not fair trade, free trade agreements -- now they want to go back and give them away with korea. i cannot believe the direction that this country has gone in. we keep talking about corporate tax rates. that is the key word. "rate." they are not paying 35%. they are paying 4%, 6%, 9%, and i am making up the difference. the irs is after a relative of mine who lost their job. they owe them $5,000. karzei and his brother have walked off with billions of dollars and our congress cannot seem to stop it. guest: well,
's why. how many wars are we fighting now? let's name them. afghanistan, iraq, pakistan, libya, and soon as mr. leon panetta says, we'll be fighting in iran. we have military operations all over the middle east. why can't we divert some of those funds, cut some of those wars and not cut social security because social security never impacted on our debt. social security was funded all along so why are we cutting social security? >> guest: well, let me just assure you we are not going to cut social security, okay? i think there might be efforts in the house to cut social security, and it might possibly pass, although i certainly know that the cut cap and whatever it's called won't pass because it requires a two-thirds vote and you need 50 democrats to vote for it, and i don't believe we'll have 50 democrats to vote for it, but i guarantee you if any measure passed the house of social security, it would not be taken up in the senate, and if it did, i believe the president would veto it. you know, you're a retiree, paid into social security, all of your working life, and you deserve to conti
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)